Exciting engineering challenges with great prizes

The Generate Quadcopter Challenge

Use topology optimization to improve the design of a lightweight, 3D printed quadcopter.

Overview

The goal of this challenge is to use the cloud based generative design software Generate to optimize the design of a lightweight, 3D printed quadcopter with topology optimization.

Additive Manufacturing has opened the potential for design freedoms and performance objectives not possible with traditional manufacturing technics. Until now there has been limited software resources to fully unleash the design potential 3DP and AM allow for. Using Generate and traditional CAD modeling software, designers are asked to create an optimized quadcopter airframe design using constraint-driven design methodology.

The goal of this Challenge is to use topology optimization software together with 3D printing! While we will pick the best designs regardless of design software used, the judges will certainly pay a little extra attention to any topology optized designs submitted, so why not give "top opt" a try as part of your design process?!

How to Submit

1. Create a CAD model in the rough shape you would like to optimize, or use the sample file provided here: Quadcopter Design Files. Also included here is a STP model showing the positioning of the motors, electronics, etc. Your design should accommodate these components in their positions as defined in the model (with one exception - the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered by you, the designer)
2. Sign up for the Generate topology optimization software here: https://generate.frustum.com/?source=grabcad#/start/register.
--- NOTE: Unfortunately, Generate currently only works in Europe and North America (see full list of countries in the Requirements section). In other countries you will have to use another topology optimization software or design the whole frame in CAD and optimize it the old fashioned way :). 3. Set up load conditions, etc. in Generate and use it to create your final optimized model.
4. Download your optimized STL model from Generate and upload it to your GrabCAD entry (enter by clicking the "Submit an entry" button on the right side of this page).
5. Add relevant renderings, including of your finished model!

Requirements

Your entry must include:1. Renderings
2. STLs output (from Generate or other design software)
3. Screenshot of final design in design software (Generate or other)
4. If using Generate, link to the URL of your design

Technical requirements:1. Must hold electronics, electronic speed controllers, motors, battery and payload in positions detailed in CAD file here: Quadcopter Design Files (with one exception - the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered by you, the designer)
2. Max. mass of frame: 90 grams
3. Attachment mechanism of all components to the frame will be using adhesive-backed Velcro in order to easily swap components during testing. While there are no requirements for minimum surface area for this attachment, this is something to consider in your design.
4. Note: you do not have to use Generate to win a prize, you may use other topology optimization software or design the frame entirely in CAD. Generate is currently available only in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

Judging criteria: Judges will weigh a variety of factors but will place special attention upon the following:
- mass reduction from meta design space
- payload delivery
- takeoff
- flight for 50 meters and soft landing
- flight time
- ingenuity of design space(s)
- design aesthetics
- ingenuity of load case(s)
- use of topology optimization software
- ease of assembly, total cost, and print time

Rules

ENTERING THE COMPETITION The Challenge is open to everyone except employees and families of GrabCAD, Stratasys and the Sponsor. Multiple entries are welcome. Team entries are welcome. By entering the Challenge you: 1. Accept the official GrabCAD Challenges Terms & Conditions. 2. Agree to be bound by the decisions of the judges (Jury). 3. Warrant that you are eligible to participate. 4. Warrant that the submission is your original work. 5. Warrant, to the best of your knowledge, your work is not, and has not been in production or otherwise previously published or exhibited. 6. Warrant neither the work nor its use infringes the intellectual property rights (whether a patent, utility model, functional design right, aesthetic design right, trademark, copyright or any other intellectual property right) of any other person. 7. Warrant participation shall not constitute employment, assignment or offer of employment or assignment. 8. Are not entitled to any compensation or reimbursement for any costs. 9. Agree the Sponsor and GrabCAD have the right to promote all entries. If you think an entry may infringe on existing copyrighted materials, please email challenges@grabcad.com

SUBMITTING AN ENTRY Only entries uploaded to GrabCAD through the "Submit entry" button on this Challenge page will be considered an entry. Only public entries are eligible. We encourage teams to use GrabCAD Workbench for developing their entries. Entries are automatically given the tag "TOPOPQUAD" when uploading to GrabCAD. Please do not edit or delete this tag. Only entries with valid tag will participate in the Challenge.

AWARDING THE WINNERS The sum of the Awards is the total gross amount of the reward. The awarded participant is solely liable for the payment of all taxes, duties and other similar measures if imposed on the reward pursuant to the legislation of the country of his/her residence, domicile, citizenship, workplace, or any other criterion of similar nature. Only 1 award per person. All judging decisions are final. All winners will be contacted by the GrabCAD staff to get their contact information and any other information needed to get the prize to them. All team awards will be transferred to the member who entered the Challenge. We will release the finalists before the announcement of the winners to give the Community an opportunity to share their favorites in the comments, discuss concerns, and allow time for any testing or analysis by the Jury. The Jury will take the feedback into consideration when picking the winners. Winning designs will be chosen based on the Rules and Requirements. Entry deadline is January 8, 2017 (11:59pm UTC). The finalists will be announced by January 30, 2017. The winners will be announced by February 15, 2017. Update: - The winners will be announced in March.

SPEC REFINEMENT We want to make sure that you have all of the information that you need to tackle the challenge. As such, in the first week of a challenge we may refine the specifications or offer clarifications based on member feedback. Please ask any questions that you have!

Prizes

Over $4,000 in prizes for top 3 winners!

1st Prize

$2,500 in cash, a 3d printed quadcopter kit, and one year pro account to Generate

2nd Prize

$1,000 in cash, and one year pro account to Generate

3rd Prize

$500 in cash, and one year pro account to Generate

About the jury?

Design submissions will be evaluated by a panel of experts, including Jesse Blankenship, CEO and founder of Frustum; Robert Wilson, president of Aerospace Advisory Group and former president and CEO of Honeywell Aerospace; and a member of the GrabCAD software organization.

About Frustum

Frustum is an innovative software company that is entirely focused on developing the latest functional generative design tools for designers through the Generate software platform. Generate empowers the mechanical designer to optimize and realize demonstrably better parts with Additive Manufacturing. Generate delivers a breakthrough cloud based optimization platform that brings design and topology optimization together as one. Designers now can advance their additive manufacturing designs in half the design and development time without any substantial learning curve. The timing has never been better for a solution to harness the power of AM.

This is a great challenge to tackle about topology optimization. I noticed that the deadline, finalists, and winners announcement dates are missing. Also, is the prize money in cash or subscription to a Generate account?

Hi all, my sincere apologies. I forgot to add one key detail in the Challenge description. Unfortunately at this time Generate is only available in Europe and North America. In other continents, please use an alternate topology optimization software or just design and optimize the frame in CAD (the old fashioned way :). I'll post the full list of countries where Generate is available in the Requirements section.

1. Is the Purpose to validate Frustum so Honeywell Aerospace can use the software in other applications?
2. Does the quadcopter have have a purpose? deliver payload fast vs precise, far away(constant speed) vs near by(agile).

3. Desired quadcopter travel speed? To take aerodynamic into consideration.
4. Complete list of electronic? For center of mass, mounting of electronics, antenna
5.Takeoff and landing surface? Grass, concrete, forrest, snow, water...
6. Must the paylod be protected or is it to work as landing gear?

7. What 3d printer are to be used?
8. 3d printable size (XYZ)?
9. Printing technology/material (to be considert Isotopic)?
10. Solid or honicome?
11. The component position are defined, is the orientation also defined or free? Motor angle, ESC vertical.

I'm with Hans Kristian Bruun on his questions, but would also like to add my own and point out a severe concern.

First my MAJOR concern;
If the motors produced 480 grams of thrust collectively, and the total AUW (including payload) is 480g, how on earth is this thing going to actually take off with that payload? T/W is 1:1 therefore it can not accelerate, take-off, or barely hover. Without the payload, the T/W is 480/230 (~2:1) not the best for a multi-copter. the T/W should be at least 2:1 when fully loaded, not empty. I typically prefer at least a T/W of 3:1 or 4:1 for appropriate control authority.

Now my question;
Do the masses listed take into account 4x of the appropriate pieces? I.E. the Motors are stated to be 26g. That is 6.5g per motor correct?

Zachary, yes the listed mass of 26g is for all 4 motors with props. The listed maximum mass for the airframe is 90g. If the airframe had a mass of 90g, the quad will not take off, therefore the airframe will need to be less than this amount. We aren't looking for a highly maneuverable quad. The quad simply needs to lift and carry the payload the specified distance.

Could you give more info regarding "one exception - the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered," which one is fixed? It seems like the payload cannot move, thus the battery cannot be lowered, so the only degree of freedom is to move the electronics up? Or both the electronics and the battery up? Thanks.

I have to ask you to reconsider your Motor/Prop combo or reduce your payload requirement. Even if the airframe were to be massless, the AUW (with payload) is 390g. That is a T/W of 1.25:1. That means the submitted designs will have a T/W of 1.00:1 to 1.25:1 when carrying the payload. T/W (w/o payload) will be 2.08 to 3.43. That is acceptable to achieve proper control and flight.

With the payload, the motors won't be able to be effective enough to actually maneuver the quad. It is going to be a bear to fly, if at all. You need overhead thrust (Thrust on top of that required to hover) to perform basic maneuvers such as banking, flying forward, and turning. I can provide a diagram of the resolved force vectors to further my case if needed. With the highest T/W (with the payload), you'll have below marginal recovery time if something disturbs the quad. I can't stress enough trying to achieve a minimal T/W of 2:1 when calculated with a massless airframe and fully loaded with the payload.

I would suggest using the RCX H1105 *V2* 5000KV from myrcmart.com (same size, shape, and vendor as one listed in challenge) with the 3x2 prop and a 4s battery. That will yield 198g thrust each for ~790g thrust total. Just use an appropriate 10A ESC. The T/W is still below 2:1 (1.65:1 to 1.98:1), but it is better than 1:1 to 1.25:1.

Hi Joseph, I was hoping you could answer a few more questions in addition to the ones already stated.

1. What model of 3D FDM printer will be used for printing the frames? If you can’t provide the specific printer, could you provide the anticipated build footprint and minimum slice thickness?

2. Is there a minimum factor of safety desired for the frame under load?

3. Is the mass of the electronic speed controllers small enough to be considered negligible?

4. Do prop guards need to be integrated into the frame?

5. Can we assume the motors will be fastened to the frame, and not attached via Velcro like the other components?

6. Is there a preferred way for attaching the payload to the frame? Could you give some more details about the payload itself?

7. In regards to design aesthetics, is there any theme or design concept that you would like the frame design to adhere to?

8. Is this frame design intended to be used only for testing? The technical requirements specify that adhesive-backed velcro will be used to restrain components during testing. If the frame is meant for both testing and as part of an end use product, how will these components be attached in the quadcopter's post-testing form?

Cameron,
1. The 3D printer to be used is not important for this stage of the challenge. We will likely print at 0.2mm layer thickness.
2. There is no minimum safety factor.
3. That is up to you.
4. No prop guards are needed.
5. The motors are attached to the frame using 4 screws, hence the screw holes in the design space. See the motor drawings included with the challenge for more info.
6. The payload is simply a 250g box of the dimensions shown in the included STP file.
7. It just needs to look cool and futuristic!
8. The frame is only for testing.
Thanks!

Hi,
Few questions:
1. Similar question like Daniele Grandi - i understand that eletronics is fixed and the battery and payload can be moved (lowered)?
2. What is thickness of adhesive-backed Velcro you will use and minimum width?
3. Is it possible to use different method of attachment components to the frame (like for example 3D printed clips designed on my own - especially for battery in my case)?
4. Could you attach a photo of the assembled electronics with wires? Or mark schematically the wires in/out on components?

Hi Fouad.
I'm not you sure if you are right - first point of How to submit is:
"1. Create a CAD model in the rough shape you would like to optimize, or use the sample file provided..."
I understand this like they have posted - this is only a sample you may use but not have to. There is no mention in description that this STEP file is an envelope we should't exceed.

I think that Fouad is right because if you check the sample image you can see how they "cut" the original design space to model an arm of the frame. Anyway I would like to know the official answer too because this is a very influential factor in the frame design.

Hi everyone,
So we waiting for a official answer about the design sapace, furthermore I need to be sure that the electronics components are fixed (except the battery), in all direction and orientation; just because if it is true the 90% of model in the entries collection are out.
Thanks!

Bare minimum the quad design space stp shows you where your motor mounts MUST be located. Since the weight is so limited you are unlikely to need much outside that envelope. Since its not called a true envelope I would assume it's just a ballpark area. Account for rotors air flow etc if you start building out of that space i would think.

Hi. everyone.
Does this mean that the period to answer questions has expired?

" SPEC REFINEMENT: We want to make sure that you have all of the information that you need to tackle the challenge. As such, in the first week of a challenge we may refine the specifications or offer clarifications based on member feedback. Please ask any questions that you have!"

hi Joseph CorsiNeed some answers
01. is the only method for gripping these electronics is velcro adhesive or we can use other methods like snap fits? if yes
02. Is this 3D printed ABS plastic is flexible enough to design a snap fit?
Thank you

The shematic you gave said the center of motors put on circle that has120mm diameter.Anf also propeller has 3in=76.2 mm diameter.The distance of two motors is approx 80 mm.i think it is very narrow.Is there any point i missed undrstand or shematic is incorrect?

I have the same question as AAG said that if the propellers are of 3 in and we have to keep the motors at 120mm Diameter ... there will be no or small clearance .. Now there are number of constraints here and we all are in a box as the positions are also almost fixed.... so
Can this diameter be made bigger than 120 mm??? Joseph Corsi

Hi,
I have a few questions regarding the technical requirements:
1. Can you please do us a small favour and upload a STEP file with the "correct" naming for each file unit (electronics, electronic speed controllers, motors, battery and payload, etc.)
Also the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered - I assume only along the Z axis.?
2. I have seen several comments mentioning and referring to the ABS material & FDM technology. However any other AM technology is acceptable as well, correct? As long as 90g isn't exceeded.
3. Do you already know the width of the Velcro? Do you envision to use 2 straps along X and 2 along Y?
Thanks for your assistance!

https://grabcad.com/aag-1: You are correct, though with a 120mm diameter the distance between the centers of the motors will be almost 85mm, giving almost 10mm of clearance. In addition, the propellers may be slightly under 3in (we will have to re-measure). So please keep it at 120mm diameter.

Christophe Blanc1) The component names are spelled out in the diagram image in the description above. You are correct that the distance between battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered by you (probably only Z makes any sense, otherwise load will be unbalanced).
2) The frames will be printed for testing on a Stratasys FDM machine in ABS (likely a Fortus 250), so this would be the best technology and material to design for.
3) The velcro will be similar to the one Fouad linked above, we will be using the minimum needed to keep things attached: http://www.velcro.com.br/~/media/images/product-detail/products/softandflexiblesewon.ashx?h=320&la=pt-BR&w=320

Hi all, please remember the goal of this Challenge is to use topology optimization software together with 3D printing! We are hoping participants may learn something new about this kind of software and also post great examples for others to learn from. While we will pick the best designs regardless of design software used, the judges will pay a little extra attention to the top opt designs submitted so give top opt a try as part of your design process!

Hello.
In answer to Michael Herbert, i'm in the same case! I think you must wait the 1st january to be recredited, so you will have to run to post your new(s) model before the 8th january! I've try to use the Inventor topology optimisation software with the small data of my PC at home and i was affraid because i've beileved that my computer will burn... There is a way to do it by the cloud but i didn't want to change to many things from my home (server configuration) and have a bad surprise when i will come back to my job from at the new year!
For the developers of optimisation softwares, i think the at use, it should be good to place mass and forces an deduct the acceleration of the assy in a report => dynamic simulation. I'm not a developer so i don't know exactly what's the job to do!
Like we say in french: c'est au pied du mur qu'on voit mieux le mur...

@ manish shah The rules state it is not required. Later they say it will be taken into consideration. You get points for using their software. They can only pick something that will work though. So if you use software but it still weighs 10 kilograms they can't pick you.

manish shah One of the goals of the challenge to try to get engineers to try and become more familiar with using topology optimization in their design process, as we believe it is an important technology of the future. But all designs are eligible regardless of design software, and non topology optimization designs will not lose points.

We are happy to announce the finalists for the Frustum Quadcopter Challenge: https://grabcad.com/challenges/the-generate-quadcopter-challenge. Take a look and let us know which finalist is your favorite! Next, the judges will be taking an in depth look at all of the entries with regards to the judging criteria. Congratulations to the finalists and to everyone who entered!

Congratulations to the finalists, after all everyone has had a good time working and I see great ideas in this final.
As for the criteria, I do not believe that most of these choices are really a project aimed at 3D printing as well, because in most of them I find printing very difficult, some even impossible to get a piece with a satisfactory result.
With certainty the main criterion is directed towards the software in question.

I think, it's a pity for all those participants about their time and effort, which didn't use or could not use the preferred software for modeling. Did they had really the same chanche to be selected for finalists, although there are so many entries, with really good design proposals in my opinion? Congratulations to all finalists on their success!

11 of the 13 finalists used the Generate software. Then there is no need to write "4. Note: you do not have to use Generate to win a prize, you may use other topology optimization software or design the frame entirely in CAD."

Please, check my 4 last models, espacially the last one which has been designed for the standard parameters of the Fortus 250 (printing parametres are given in the text file!). The last one respect the TOTALITY of the technical requirments and the 3 others are not so far from it:
-Components stayed in theirs positions (18.34mm +/- .254mm between bottom face of electronic casing + controlers and top face of the aluminium bloc).
-Only adhesive-backed velcro is used and the thickness of it has been considered in the design (2.032mm - 8/100 inch). I did a pdf with cotations to explain how to proceed.

In the judging critera, i think that my design is one of the best (regarding the position of the components remained) on these two point:
- ingenuity of design space(s)
- ease of assembly, total cost, and print time ( printer immobilisation time regarding total height of 78/100 inch and layer/slice thickness of 1/100 inch).
I can say too that the weight of the last model is not so bad, and that without considering what could be done with the infill parameters : 3.5% of the total weight of the components for 1.5%for the lightest model.
I can ensure too a certain robustness during the extrem maneuver in flight and during the manipulation.

Third, tribute to!
Let me draw your attention to these designs that caught my attention (except mine), maybe not the best, but, I think they have brought originals solutions during the contest (chronologically).

Well done by all that entered. Please don't take the following as that I am an sore loser, however I am a bit confused with the list of finalists, as I thought entrants were allowed to make multiple entries, however only one entry per finalist will be considered. In the list of finalists the are multiple entrants with two or more designs chosen. On top of the fact that it does seem to look that entrants using Generate were given preference, it would of been nice for all entrants to of been given the same playing field to play on. I also thought that all electronic components need to be able to be attached to the body with stick on Velcro. From drone building experience, 90% of the finalists designs will fail this, they may look streamline but surface area contact to be sufficient to hold the components onto the body during flight(especially considering the worst possible flying conditions or pilots). There were very few entrants that actually looked into components to be used on the build, and providing a list of them with pricing. I know it may be allot, but could all entrants be given a brief of where they may have failed so they can do better in future challenges.

Well done to all the participants and congratulations to the finalists. I really enjoyed this challenge. I've wanted to design a quad copter for a while, and this challenge gave me a good excuse to do it!

I'm a little surprised that max.borhof-1 wasn't selected amongst the finalists. I thought a few of his designs looked pretty neat and seemed 3D printable with a little support.

Good luck to all the finalists, but especially salva.serrano-1. I printed your TOP quadcOPTer design and it came out a treat! Light, rigid, quick to print with minimal support. Think you've got a winner there.

Johan, I did notice this also ;-) I would like to see some photos of assembled finalists quadcopters or movies will be the best. As for the 3d printing - all participants projects can be printed with PVA support filamnet. I wondering about Joseph Corsi has written about 1 month ago:
"7. It just needs to look cool and futuristic!" ;-)

Terence, I agree with you about Salva Serrano's very good relief work, and this also applies to the judicious choice of the load case.
I think however that the following selected options are closer to the initial criteria imposed for the competition (there were only +/- 2mm of material to be distributed at the top and / or bottom of the battery):
Topologie optimised quadcopterKnutQuad120mm Quadcopter frame V03 using Topology optimization GenerateFor the last one, the case of load is also interesting (I chosen the same option!), that is the weight of the battery on the top plate; For my part I have weighed on the electronics box via the Velcro and I chose as fixed in Generate the side edges of the upper face. I must also say that having to calculate the acceleration by considering the mass of the chassis as zero is the right option.
All that remains is to wait for the tests and see if the gyroscopic effect will have a decisive character during the passing examination for the differents models!

One more thing concerning the choice to put the 2 mm of material at the top and / or bottom: I think it would be better to put them on top because of the possible buckling in the area that is in compression and let Generate choose the amount of Material required below and outside the space occupied by the load.
For my part, I could have further refined my draft or, rather, push the weight reduction in Generate, but I have decided to ensure a certain robustness that has not yet had the opportunity to appreciate the solidity of a 3D printed object.

Looking further into the final choices, nothing against the designers as I really like most of the final entrants as most drones are ugly and there where some really good designs that were functional and had good looks. The most ingenious design was the Cheapest Drone Ever which is a fantastic design for businesses like Dominos and Amazon that propose to deliver direct to the customer with drones. This design not only cheap but will adapt to different sized boxes quite easily. In saying that I am dumbfounded in how this made it as a finalist as the entry requirements to all was:

1. Create a CAD model in the rough shape you would like to optimize, or use the sample file provided here: Quadcopter Design Files. Also included here is a STP model showing the positioning of the motors, electronics, etc. Your design should accommodate these components in their positions as defined in the model (with one exception - the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered by you, the designer)

and it says again:

Technical requirements:
1. Must hold electronics, electronic speed controllers, motors, battery and payload in positions detailed in CAD file here: Quadcopter Design Files (with one exception - the distance between the battery and electronics is not defined and can be altered by you, the designer)
2. Max. mass of frame: 90 grams
3. Attachment mechanism of all components to the frame will be using adhesive-backed Velcro in order to easily swap components during testing. While there are no requirements for minimum surface area for this attachment, this is something to consider in your design.

Quite clearly stating that the electronics have to be positioned as per the model as per in the CAD file here: Quadcopter Design Files except the positioning of the payload and Attachment mechanism of all components to the frame will be using adhesive-backed Velcro in order to easily swap components during testing.

The following don't comply with one or more of those basic requirements:

With regards to the requirement of attachment mechanism of all components to the frame will be using adhesive-backed Velcro in order to easily swap components during testing, I would like to see videos of each of the finalists drones being fitted out with all the necessary components (see a basic list outlined in my drone design which is all parts needed to get a drone to fly without the transmitter handset). Having built drones and flown them I can not see 12 of the finalists being able to achieve flight and hold all components on to the body with adhesive-backed Velcro.

To clarify mine and the other entrants questions regarding the results, could we get the respect of answers, as we all put in allot of time and effort into our entries and deserve that at least.

Hi Ronald, I just thought GC outlined the rules and requirements concise and clearly and this was not achieved by 90% of all entrants. As most went for an aesthetically appealing designs that weighed the least, over a design that achieved the desired outcome of GC whilst also achieving the guidelines set out. What I am totally baffled by is why and how the finalists where achieved. With such confusion about this, we need to have some clarification from GC about how and why they achieved these decisions. This will only benefit us in possible future challenges, if we decide to put in the time for something that isn't fair to all. Would someone from GC please respond to our queries please?

Worth noting
"Judging criteria: Judges will weigh a variety of factors but will place special attention upon the following:"
did include
"- use of topology optimization software"
By stating that you aren't required to use the software they did not state that you would not be judged on your using the software. It's why they held the competition you know? To test out their software? The copter design was not the sole product. The software being tested was also a major thing. Underneath the picture it says: Use topology optimization to improve the design of a lightweight, 3D printed quadcopter.

I have to say that what's Nathaniel say is true:
"The goal of this challenge is to use the cloud based generative design software Generate to optimize the design of a lightweight, 3D printed quadcopter with topology optimization".
However, i'm a quite uncertain of the importance of the critera "3D printability": as Stratasys take part into this challenge, i think that the link between generative software and 3d industrial printing must be considered too as important. If considering as a growing buisness the interaction of this two domains, i tought that it was a platform to improve, by imposing real conditions (the specifications) performed in different ways (contest participants) and see what problems can occur; that's why i take part to choose a design which don't need to be reworked too much in regards of the standard parameters of the printer (wall thickness, raster height, standard light infill) as treating the file take time and money... another critera!

Sign up to upload your ideas

Entries (220)

We have updated our terms in order to better protect your hard work and keep our challenges running smoothly! To submit your challenge entry, please read and accept the new Challenge Terms and Conditions.

The Computer-Aided Design ("CAD") files and all associated content posted to this website are created, uploaded, managed and owned by third party users. Each CAD and any associated text, image or data is in no way sponsored by or affiliated with any company, organization or real-world item, product, or good it may purport to portray.